SECRETARY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI vs K.B.RANGACHARI

THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite parties in O.P. No. 524/1995 on the file of District Forum, Visakhapatnam.

THE complainant, who was a resident of Anakapalle, sent a telegram to his son, residing at Hyderabad, bearing No. A-60 dated 6.10.1995 as follows : "No response as per your phone, pursue the matter with Director and A.G." However, the message received by his son was "Start immediately". As a result, the complainant''s son took a taxi and with his family reached Anakapalle on 7.10.1995 as he was worried that some thing untoward has happened and all the time he was worried. THE complainant, therefore, approached the second opposite party i.e. Junior Telecom Officer, Telegraph Office, Anakapalle and claimed Rs. 2,000/- towards travelling expenses, damages of Rs. 10,000/- and salary loss of Rs. 500/-. However, there was no response from the second opposite party, hence the complaint. The opposite parties filed a counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and brought to the notice of the District Forum, Section 9 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, according to which, Gvernment or its official shall not be responsible for any loss or damage which may occur in consequence of any telegraph officer failing in his duty or wrong delivery of any message unless it is done negligently, maliciously or fraudulently.

The District Forum however found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly ordered payment of Rs. 2,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs. 1,000/- with interest at 15 per cent per annum if the compensation amount is not paid within two months. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

WE have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum and the grounds of appeal. Except reiterating Section 9 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 no other evidence has been filed before us. The appellants did not file any affidavit of the concerned officer as to what has happened either in the District Forum or in the appeal. Their argument that messages must have got mixed up during transmission is only an intelligent guess at the most. They have neither conducted an inquiry to find as to how the messages got mixed up nor filed any affidavit of the concerned employee. Therefore, we do not see any illegality in the conclusion drawn by the District Forum that it was a clear case of negligence and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. A person going from Hyderabad to Anakapalle must have spent Rs. 2,000/- towards travelling expenses. Therefore, we direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards travelling expenses and Rs. 2,000/- towards damages and costs together with interest at 9 per cent per annum in the first instance and recover the same from the concerned employee due to whose negligence the wrong message was sent. The appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent indicated above. Time for payment eight weeks. Appeal partly allowed.